AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the post of Liaison Officer in the 1st respondent establishment can be filled up only with those candidates, who have got qualification prescribed by Ext. P1 notification and that the petitioner is entitled and eligible to be appointed to the aforesaid post. In response to Ext. P1 notification, the petitioner applied for the post of Liaison Officer in the 1st respondent Board. The petitioner would allege that though he was fully qualified and eligible for appointment as Liaison Officer in the 1st respondent Board, the 2nd respondent was given 1st rank while the petitioner was given only the 2nd rank in the selection process.
According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is not at all eligible for an appointment to the post of Liaison Officer in the 1st respondent Board as he was not holding the prescribed qualification under Ext. P2 byelaws.
According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent was placed against rank No. 1 relaxing the experience because of extraneous considerations.
The further allegation is that 1st respondent has no right to relax the qualification and relaxation of experience is permissible only in the case of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.
In the counter filed by the 1st respondent, it was averred that 11 applications were received for the post of Liaison Officer; and only three candidates who were having the prescribed qualification and experience as per the Recruitment Rules were called for an interview. The 2nd respondent, who ranked first was offered the post of Liaison Officer. Ext. R1(a) is the tabulated statement of the marks awarded to the candidates. The 2nd respondent was working in the office of the Ministry Micro Small and Medium Enterprises of (MS and ME) and possesses Degree in B.Com. and Diploma in Computer Application. He was engaged on contract basis by the respondent Board also to follow up matters connected with the Board, with the office of the Hon''ble Minister, Ministry of MS and ME as well as other Ministries and Departments. Ext. R1(b) is the experience certificate of the 2nd respondent. It was averred that the qualification prescribed for appointment as Liaison Officer is "Graduation with adequate experience in the Central Secretariat". Being a direct recruitment post, it does not say that the experience in Central Secretariat should be in a permanent capacity. According to the 1st respondent, adequate experience means an experience in liaison work and the 2nd respondent was having such experience in the Central Secretariat. The appointing authority has not made any relaxation in the qualification. The petitioner was attending the duties of Protocol Assistant and mainly following up the court cases relating to his department. Appointment was on the basis of merit. The selection procedure was clear and transparent and there was no malafide exercise of power; it was contended. It was further averred that the petitioner being a Coir Board employee, he could approach the appointing authority first and if his grievances are not redressed by the appointing authority, he could approach the Appellate Authority which is the Nodal Ministry. Only if his grievances are not redressed suitably by the Appellate Authority, he could approach this Court. Therefore, it was contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner did not follow the aforesaid procedure.
The 2nd respondent also filed a detailed counter. According to him, he became the Liaison Officer of the 1st respondent after a selection process conducted by the 1st respondent in accordance with law. In order to prove that no relaxation has been granted, he has produced copies of his Degree certificate, mark sheets, experience certificate etc. According to him, the appointing authority was perfectly justified in assessing his experience in the Central Secretariat and the same cannot be called in question in a court of law under the guise of judicial review.
It was also pointed out that no malafide is attributed to the Interview Board or to the 1st respondent in the matter of selection process. Therefore, he prayed for a dismissal of the writ petition.
Arguments have been heard.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner gave thrust to the argument that the 2nd respondent was not having the requisite qualification and the same was relaxed by the 1st respondent. This was denied by the 1st respondent Coir Board. It was also argued that as per Ext. P5, appointment otherwise than through the Employment Exchange has been barred under the respondent Board. However, the same relates to casual and contingent labours.
It was also pointed out that the 2nd respondent was not a permanent employee in the Central Secretariat and referring to Ext. P6, it was argued that he was appointed on contract basis under the respondent Board also. This fact is admitted in the counter by the 1st respondent. Ext. R1(b) clearly amplifies the experience possessed by the 2nd respondent. The Recruitment Rule does not insist that the experience in Central Secretariat should be in a permanent capacity as rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent.
As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent, there is no challenge regarding academic qualification of the 2nd respondent. There is no challenge that the 2nd respondent was over aged. The only contention is regarding the experience of the 2nd respondent. Of course, the Recruitment Rule insists for adequate experience. The question is whether the same has to be gauged on the length of experience. Neither in the notification nor in the Recruitment Rule weightage on the length of service was mentioned. That means, that was left with the discretion of the appointing authority.
As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, there is no whisper in the writ petition that either the 1st respondent or the Interview Board was acting with any malafides. Though it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in paragraph 7 of the petition to accept additional documents, there is a passing observation to that effect but that cannot be a substitute for the main petition.
Malafides is something more, i.e., acting with malice. The Interview Board, in its wisdom, has selected the 2nd respondent after finding that the experience gained by him in the Central Secretariat is adequate enough to hold the post of Liaison Officer under the 1st respondent. The educational qualification of the 2nd respondent stands proved by Ext. R2(g). The experience qualification stands proved by Ext. R2(i). The petitioner is not pin pointing on what aspect the lack of qualification is attracted. If it has to be construed as absence of requisite experience, what is required under the notification is adequate experience. As rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent, the word ''adequate'' is not controlled by any prefix or suffix.
In other words, the assessment of experience was at the sole decretion of the appointing authority and the Interview Board. As no malafides were attributed to the appointing authority or the interview Board by the petitioner, the attempt of the petitioner to seek judicial review of the administrative action taken by the 1st respondent cannot be sustained.
In the result, the writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed.